User:Noetica/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Archive for everything preceding July 2007:

---

Hi Noetica! Since no one else has welcomed you to Wikipedia, I will do it. :-) Glad to have you here. That's some good work you have been doing in the music area. Thanks for the correction of "rhythm" to "time values" in the article I wrote on Notes inégales; your version is more precise. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions! Best regards, Antandrus 16:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Yes, I also love that Pindar quote; I've carried it in my head for a couple of decades now; if only I could read it in ancient Greek, alas, but then I haven't quite exhausted all the limits of the possible myself yet.  :-) I first encountered it as the epigraph to The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus; but I see its applicability to Valéry's poem as well! (Interesting, there is a poem by Swinburne on a similar subject, only in his the cemetery is being devoured by the North Sea; it's even more melancholy than Valéry's). Happy editing! Antandrus 23:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! and thanks for the comment. Oh, yes, the trusty n-dash, my friend and accomplice on nights when I'm too tired or stupid to do serious research and writing. And I continue to be impressed with your good work; you're doing a great job polishing the writing around here, which sorely needs to be done. Be well, Antandrus 02:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Handy characters, etc. 2 Possible worlds 3 You have new messages 4 Dembski 5 Greek stems 6 Search and accents 7 Rules, hyphens, & dashes 8 Greetings 9 Apostrophes 10 Physics Article WIP proposal 11 Consecutive fifths 12 HizbUllah 13 Physics/wip Progress 14 User Aey 15 list 16 Re: Physics development activity 17 Signing unsigned posts for others 18 While unicode accidentals are more aesthetic 19 Personal attacks?? 20 Sonata problems--and interpersonal conflict 21 FAC problem 22 License tagging for Image:Holding flower.jpg 23 Physics/wip 24 Who is the double editor? 24.1 Beautiful writing 25 On your Babes in Philosophy 26 On prcatice 27 Current disruption on Philosophy Talk 28 The Horror? 29 I'd rather help Sisyphus over there... 30 WP:BITE? 31 Diminished seventh 32 Pronunciations of foreign names 33 Moving "diatonic" discussion 34 Full stop 35 hi 36 Your edit comment on the color talk page... 37 Avoid tones in Music Theory article 38 D&C 39 A break from the preparation 40 See my user page 41 See my user page, again 42 Crepuscle of the Grammarians 43 Diatonic function??? 44 Bernado Giacomini 45 AD/CE, MoS, and POV 46 em dashes 47 Oxford commas 48 Diatonic and chromatic 49 single-chord vs contextual, functional analysis 50 hyphens and dashes in the MoS 51 Call for discussion in the Music MOS 52 birds 53 Noetica and Tony's conversation (continued) 54 Augmented sixth 55 Takemitsu 56 Mediation on I 6-4 57 Hyphens in MOS

[edit] Handy characters, etc.

[edit] Possible worlds

I liked your edits on possible worlds. Please look at my comment (question) in the talk page Talk:Possible worlds on defining the metric between possible worlds.CSTAR 03:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You have new messages

...and it's an apostrophe. What a disappointment.  ;( --Henrygb 18:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski

I just had to say hi to someone who knows what affirming the consequent is and recognizes it when s/he sees it. ;-) Just a point about analyse/analyze: the practice here is to continue to use whatever spelling style is already dominant in the article, so if it's American, that's what's used; if British, then that. There is some debate about this going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style in case you're interested. Some editors want articles about Americans always to be in American English and so on. But broadly speaking, the first major contributer gets to decide which style to use, the exception being if the topic is inherently tied to a particular country; for example, an article about the British prime minister should be in British English. It's all pretty silly in my view, but there you go. Hope this helps, and welcome to the madhouse. SlimVirgin 03:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noetica-- thanks for your note. I'm sorry I had to be a stickler on spelling. I'm enjoying reading your points on the Dembski page, and am leaning toward the fallacy in question being a case of affirming the consequent. Please stick around and contribute. I hope you don't mind being challenged, because we all get it at one point or another on these contentious articles, and more often than not are compelled to justify our positions. Which is a good thing, I think... --FeloniousMonk 18:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing to be challenged when it's done in good faith with the aim of improving the article; FM's challenges are always good faith, and I sense Noetica's will be too. The problem arises with editors who are only out to make trouble or to make POV edits, and there's at least one of those hanging around the Dembski and Human pages. Then it becomes conflict for conflict's sake, which is tiresome. SlimVirgin 01:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greek stems

When I say a y can never be followed by a z I of course mean "in verb endings." Adam 08:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Search and accents

That's a good point you raise about the accents. I'm not sure where you should report that, but the place to start is probably Wikipedia:Village pump. The technical one is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where you just leave a note as if on a regular talk page. However, there is a comment at the top of that page saying there is no guarantee that developers will read it, and they suggest going here, though I've never seen this page and don't know how it works. I'd probably start with the village pump technical page if I were you. Hope this helps. Best, SlimVirgin 08:01, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rules, hyphens, & dashes

No, I'm afraid that I've been extremely busy (the last week of term, reports to be written, arrangements to be made for next term the backlog of essay marking to be tackled, etc.). I don't understand why you'd make it a principle to use the same size dash for different purposes; why is that more sensible than, for example, deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both? Modern publishers (especially, though not only, non-academic publishers like Penguin) have ditched many of the standard rules, largely because they no longer employ proof-readers or copy-editors, and they want to make life easy for their typesetters. That doesn't apply here on Wikipedia, of course.

The only book I have to hand (that I could find in the piles that are at the moment teetering on my study floor) is Herbert Rees' Rules of Printed English. After distinguihsing between the en rule, the em rule, and the 2-em rule, he says (§§59ff):

The en rule should be used:

1. “to mark off a parenthesis which makes a notable break in the flow of the sentence” (or to avoid parentheses within parentheses);
2. to join numerals, etc., names of joint authors, etc.;
3. for various other minor functions (indicating drawling or stuttering in reported speech, etc.).

The em rule should be used for all other functions (he mentions a number, giving examples, such as: “...the pursuit of the arts, the rule of law, love of country, reverence for the gods — all this makes up civilization”).

The 2-em rule doesn't really concern us in the sort of writing found in an encyclopædia.

I have in the past checked Rees against other books for typesetters, and have found only differences in detail.

Theses are the rules that I've always followed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mel. Yes, I thought from your style here and there that this might be your approach. You don't actually answer my repeated question about colon-like uses of the dash, unless the last example you cite (the "recapitulating" one) counts as one such use, which is debatable. Never mind! I now understand the situation well enough. Myself, I favour the clean style that Penguin has developed. And I would point out that, since the em dash was pretty well universally used in earlier work for sentence-level punctation (that is, excluding cases in which the dash functions much like a hyphen), there is really no long-settled precedent for modern practice. This amply justifies Penguin doing what it does. In fact, it could be argued that the precedents are all for uniformity, so any distinction such as you favour, following Rees, is out of step with a broad and long-established principle in the use of dashes.

As for your question earlier on ("I don't understand why you'd make it a principle to use the same size dash for different purposes; why is that more sensible than, for example, deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both?"), there is an easy answer. There is plenty of precedent for using the same punctuation marks for different purposes. Consider commas, which we use in numbers like 1,000,000 and also in sentences. Consider full stops and their various uses (like marking the shortening of a word), or colons for that matter. And then consider your own use of the en dash for joint authors, page ranges, etc., and your use the same en dash parenthetically in sentences! Penguin (and I) are more consistent; and I could ask rhetorically in reply "Why do you use two different styles for sentence-level dashes?" The difference between commas and semicolons is quite a different matter, since both have long-established (though mutable: see the comma in Locke and Hume, for example, compared to modern usage) distinct roles.

But my point didn't concern using one mark for different purposes, it concerned using one mark exclusively (“deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both”). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Finally, I venture the suggestion the Rees way is demonstrably a minority way. In most published texts the parenthetic and colon-like dashes are the same, whether that same be em dash or en dash.

Anyway, as I say, I have my answer. We'd better not spend too much more time on this. Thanks!--Noetica 10:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking at a range of books, the older ones tend to use both en and em rules, the newer (mainly computer-produced) ones use only one. I still contend that, when we have two rules and a variety of purposes, it makes it easier for the reader if different rules are used for different puroposes. Thus if I meet: ‘ – ’ I'm prepared for a parenthesis, while if I meet: ‘ — ’ I know that something else is intended. Simplicity's fine if it makes things easier for the reader; I don't see that sticking to either en or em rules does that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your practice and the reasons you offer for it. I still wonder how you would accurately and objectively individuate distinct "purposes"! There are many more purposes than there are available marks, so we cannot "carve at the joints" with them. Nor must we strain to do so, since context in written language plays its helping role. I too would want things made easier for the reader; and we simply disagree about the means. That may in the end be an empirical matter, and neither of us has done the required empirical investigation.

In the end, I would not want the practice you advocate dismissed lightly, as if it had nothing going for it. But I would claim the same indulgence for the Penguin practice, which I favour, after what I think you will allow me amounts to a pretty searching examination. Appeals to precedent in this domain are particularly suspect, as I have pointed out. As for Wikipedia, I think we agree that the case is different from others that you or I may find ourselves involved with. Now I propose that we move on. --Noetica 21:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Pleasant surprise to see your name scrolling by in Special:Recentchanges. Hope all is well, and happy editing!  :-) Antandrus (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)#

[edit] Apostrophes

Thanks for your help with those queries, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. Do you think the Apostrophe page could do with an explanation of my query, as an example of hypercorrection? It's just a thought, perhaps that page is cluttered enough. Thanks again. FreeMorpheme 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consecutive fifths

I'll be happy to help, to the best of my ability. My knowledge of music theory is limited. I'm probably the ideal reviewer, though; not knowing the rules intimately, I'll be a good gauge as to whether what you're writing is expressing what you want it to. Not knowing the material as well as you, I'd prefer to follow your lead. Peirigill 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HizbUllah

it's ok; I thought it must be a mistake, but since you insist I'll check it. I find it rather unlikely that Arabic stress should fall on an i`rab vowel (the -u-) in any case. I suppose you'd agree it has to be hIzbun, al-hIzbu. Any chance you can point me to somewhere I could verify it is actually hizbU- in idafa? Is this a matter of dropping the final -i, hizbU-llah but hizbu-llAhi? dab (ᛏ) 22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, I won't interfere with your choice of featured English pronunciation, but I have misgivings about being assertive about the Arabic one. I suspect that the BBC's recommendation is directly based on the proper High Arabic pronunciation: In High Arabic, I *believe* (I am not an expert) the proper pronunciation would be hizbu-llAhi (four syllables, stress on the third). Except nobody bothers to pronounce the -i, which would yield hizbu-llAh. But it is possible that in acutal usage, the stress *then* moves to the new penultimate, hizbU-llah. I will readily believe that the Lebanese commonly do that, but I would be careful about stating outright that this is the proper Arabic pronunciation. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics/wip Progress

I was also getting a bit impatient with how nobody was willing to move things on; so, far from being offended, I commend your effort to keep the discussion from stalling. I imagine that at least one person will object that there are actually two separate points in your motion that they may not both wish to agree with. Therefore, I will reply to your post on the wip page and vote for both separately to keep things moving (rather than have someone point this out and call for a remodified motion). We really must keep people interested so that they may constructively contribute, so I commend you again. Krea 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Aey

Hello Noetica,

I saw on user:aey's page that he had screwed with your work. I am a fellow victim of this sort of nightmarishly-bad editing. My article, indeterminacy in philosophy, has suffered from multiple edits by Aey that render arguments incomprehensible, self-contradictory, and, in many cases, grammatically or syntactically incorrect. He or she refuses to discuss reasons for such edits on the discussion page and insists that I am wrong on many points without providing a shred of evidence for these claims. I, for my part, have backed up every point made in my article with mountains of evidence.

I would appreciate it if you could find the time to take a look at the discussion page for that article and let us both know what you think of what's going on, since it seems like you are experiencing the same sort of problem:

"

1. What was wrong with the information you replaced?
2. What are the "complex aesthetico-philosophical premises" of which you speak? (Why do you mention them, and why do you label them in that obscure way?)
3. Which existentialists are they, who think that way about Nietzsche?
4. What is a "self-defining paradigm"? How can Nietzsche's thought be reasonably considered "one characteristic" of it?

"

I have asked user:aey similar questions about fifty times now in response to similar edits of my work, and have received the same non-answers that you have. Aey obviously does not know Nietzsche; you seem to, and I hope you'll agree that I do too.

Thanks very much for your time. I await your reply. If you do decide to read the article, make sure to read my latest revision, and not one by Aey. If you can help me explain to him that his actions are inappropriate, I will gladly do the same for you.

Tastyummy 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Just added this because I accidentally called my last edit "minor" when it wasn't especially so. Tastyummy 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Noetica. I find Tastyummy's talk in bad faith. He's lately taking our recent discussion at Indeterminacy (Philosophy) very personally and right now wishes to use a recent discussion between you and I that has well been settled (and isn't even remotely related) as a way to bring you to his side. Anyway, I would like that Tastyummy not resort to personal attacks and rampant bad faith assumptions about me, but that cannot be helped, apparently. All I wish to say is that you take these considerations with some seriousness. Thank you for your understanding. Aey 06:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I did at one point personally attack Aey. But he has now done the same for me, as is noted on the discussion page. I would, indeed, appreciate having you "on my side", but I obviously expect you to decide for yourself whether my article is or is not conformant with Wikipedia policies. If it is true that you settled your dispute with Aey long ago, then I apologize for wasting your time in "rampant bad faith". I merely thought that you appeared to be a fellow grammarian, and my problems with Aey's edits of my page mainly stem from his replacement of my English grammar with his, which to me is often virtually incomprehensible. If this has been a waste of your time altogether, again, all apologies. Tastyummy 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring much of the other assumptions Tastyummy is using here, he doesn't recognized that the discussion you and I had was about content, not grammar (and my grammar isn't usually all that bad, only a few times, for my mother tounge isn't English), which Tastyummy has blown far out of proportion to the point of absolute absurdity. Anyway, I really don't wish to contribute to that page due to Tastyummy's behavior. Aey 08:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[This is my reply to Tastyummy and Aey at my talk page; I have posted this message at User_talk:Tastyummy and User_talk:Aey also. For convenience, please continue the discussion only at MY page, if you want me to read and contribute to it. Best that it be in one place. - Noetica 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)] Well! Tastyummy, you are very welcome to approach me as you did. I am not an expert on Nietzsche, but Philosophy is an article that I am certainly competent to deal with, and I do give it my attention from time to time. Aey, I am not satisfied that matters have been resolved at that article. I have simply left things for a little while, warning you as I did so that I'd be watching. I have been, and I am tempted simply to revert the text to how it was before your intervention, which I find decidedly substandard. I am just an ordinary editor, not an admin. But I am not impressed with your behaviour around the place. If you do not show more insight into the limitations of your offerings, and more care, consideration, and restraint, I may take the matter to an admin; or if anyone else wants to do that they can rely on my support. I'll continue to monitor the situation, and I'll look more closely at the article Tastyummy refers to. I hope the two of you will feel free to discuss things calmly at my page, with a view to sorting all this out. - Noetica 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the "content problems" in my article weren't being discussed on its discussion page; rather, the argument was something like

Aey: "This doesn't conform to policy, whether you believe me or not." [Italics added-- but I believe he did use the exact phrase "whether you believe me or not", or one very similar to it, multiple times in his "description" of the "many" "specific" problems in the article.

Me: Here is evidence to the contrary: [insert evidence here]. Please support your claim.

Repeat.

Aey contributed very valuably to the discussion in other ways, such as by telling me I needed to cite more sources. This was true, and I began to do so immediately and am still gathering more. But, for example, is it really necessary to source a statement that experimental data must be quantifiable in science when I'd already linked to quantifiability, the scientific method, et cetera-- i.e., provided the reader with enough information to back this statement up? I could certainly be wrong in that it may indeed be necessary to cite every other sentence in my article, but this would make it a very unusual Wikipedia article indeed. He also let me know that " - " should replace double hyphens due to wikipedia style policies. I had been wrong on this and it was useful to know.

As for my attacks against Aey's grammar: these followed his attacks on mine, as is shown in the history and the discussion page. I was, thus, actually defending my original formulations in order to prevent their being replaced with ones that didn't make sense. For example, Aey reformulated a grammatically-correct example of finding a loop of definition in a dictionary into a grammatically-incorrect one, because mine was supposedly "unclear".

It was this lack of evidence that anything was wrong with my article that made me look for more opinions. Aey cited only wikipedia policy pages in his statements that my article didn't conform; he almost never actually discussed specifically which parts of the article didn't conform (although he did a few times) but generally simply freely edited the article. Of course Wikipedia allows this, but it is counterproductive, and it was particularly so for this article, since, on more than one occasion, his editing actually turned my writing into nonsense. My original formulations have almost invariably been fine. An exception: his replacement of "cherished in science" to "central in science", which I agree is less emotionally-loaded. But by and large, I think the page history will support my statements.

I, for my part, backed up each statement I made in the article with mountains of evidence, both within the article itself, on the discussion page, and in linking to other articles whose veracity has not been called into question.

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your mediation of this conflict.

Tastyummy 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Tastyummy. I see that Aey has decided to withdraw from English-language Wikipedia. This drastic decision will avert the problem, of course, though we might have wished for a more collegial resolution. Let's maintain goodwill, and see what happens. By all means keep in touch! - Noetica 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That certainly seems pretty drastic. I, for my part, got pretty pissed at one point and said that I was going to leave Wikipedia, but I'm glad I didn't follow through on this (and, really, I knew I wouldn't the moment I said it). But I have to be honest: I am really quite glad that aey is (supposedly) gone.

Someone recently vandalised my user page and accused my best friend (in real life as well as here on Wikipedia), user:Max18well, of being my sockpuppet, presumably over the article we've been discussing. Luckily the vandalism of my user page was caught by user:khoikhoi; the history for my page shows that Aey did something to it, but I keep missing it in the diff, so I can't tell whether he helped vandalise it or was actually trying to say something to me yet-- I'm too distracted right now to read through the whole thing, but I strongly suspect that Aey contributed to vandalism. Nevertheless, I will continue, as you suggest, to "show goodwill": Aey, and whoever else vandalised my page, if you're reading this, I apologise for my rudeness and hope you'll do the same.

Anyway, I would love to keep in touch. You seem to be an excellent grammarian-- Wikipedia needs more of these-- and your contributions to Wikipedia's philosophy article are excellent. I'd also be interested in your personal opinion of my article, simply because I admire your writing and I hope you find mine to be at least passable.

Tastyummy 09:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I am happy to keep our correspondence on this page if this is more convenient for you; however, I invite you to use my user talk page for discussion at any time. Thanks again, Tastyummy 10:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that you seem to be a lover of music. Listen to [this invention]. I wrote it a couple of years ago and synthesized it on my computer since I'm no pianist. I'd be interested in your opinion. Tastyummy 12:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again, Tastyummy. I do like your invention. Have you done much of this sort of thing? I am a composer, but a very lazy one. I haven't done much for a long time, and have nothing to send you at the moment. I won't chat for long right now, because where I am in the world (remember the world?) it is late at night, and I must sleep (remember sleep?). Thank you for your compliments concerning my edits and my English. Yours are good too. More soon, OK? - Noetica 13:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "the world" is something pretty alien to me right now, and I can barely remember sleep. :) I've suffered from insomnia since I was very young; tonight was a particularly wakeful night (hence the approximately-twelve-hour editing frenzy) and I hope I'm not becoming too annoying in constantly editing your discussion page... It's totally understandable to want to ignore Wikipedia altogether for extended periods of time. I just can't ever manage to actually pull this off. Call it weird, (and I don't think you will), but I love to write. As for more composing, I more or less stopped altogether for about a year, and if that's not "lazy" then I don't know what is. But I'm getting back into it. That was some of my better work; if and when I come up with anything else that I'm not ashamed to hear for myself, I'll post it, if you like. Glad to hear from you, Tastyummy 15:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list

Hi, can you raise any problems you see by generally removing the quotes? We might get around them by using parentheses in a few places. The website for the Reith lectures audio streams is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/lectures.shtml

As for parallels, I've had my hands full with all of the politics at FAC, FAR/C and WIAFA talk, and trying to make my 1a page look presentable. Tony 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds excellent; will do soon. Tony 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It will be nice to have it tidied up, especially if the article is cited externally. Tony 06:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Physics development activity

Hi, thanks for the kind words. With regard to the specific points you made - they are both valid things to say. Unfortunately the mediawiki software isn't all that good at discussion presentation (and I believe that is something that is going to be improved in the long term) so things can get a little messy and hard to follow. Hopefully things will flow along in a sensible manner, but I am happy to structure discussions into logical layouts if the need arises. The idea I had was to follow an iteration style model - after a sensible amount of time of discussion I would form a "first draft" proposal for the particular discussion area and then let a new round of chatter take place. Following on from that a second draft would be postulated by me based on the new discussions - and then let the discussion rage again. The process then continues until we have a situation that everyone is happy with (or a supermajority if we can't get complete agreement). Obviously the multiple iterations won't be needed for all areas - on some aspects things should hopefully naturally come together without any problems.

I am happy to let things flow naturally at the moment and see where we go. Hopefully the "area" up for discussion each time will be nice and tight enough to stop rambling discussion covering a whole swathe of topics (which is exactly the problem with the main talk page - there are so many things going on in there is hard to keep track of anything). Once we have the structure setup then it will just be a case of looking at each chapter in turn and formulating what goes in it. Obviously this first bit is a little more boring than getting straight in to the "Physics can be defined as..." textural discussion - but if we have a solid chapter framework then we should be able to hang text off of it in a structured manner. SFC9394 22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing unsigned posts for others

I do this a lot, myself. There are actually template for it:

Template:Unsigned and Template:Unsigned2.

I tend to write something like:

{{subst:unsigned2|05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)|Rainwarrior}}

This creates: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainwarrior (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

You can copy the needed information to fill it in right off the edit history. - Rainwarrior 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While unicode accidentals are more aesthetic

indeed, I prefer them- and the consistent use of -flat/-sharp or - ♭/ ♯ in a document is even more to be preferred I agree- the relevant Manual of Style only actually wants to forbid, I think, constructions like Ab or C# instead of A♭ , A-flat, C♯, C-sharp. the Ab and C# are forbidden, the other four aren't. So going through and replacing -flat and -sharp with unicode is maybe lagniappe? Wishing well sincerely to a fellow musiclover Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. First warning. Stirling Newberry 20:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks??

I observe that Stirling Newberry (recently blocked for a violation of Wikipedia policy – so it may be unfair to address this right now) has given me a "first warning" about personal attacks (see immediately above)! I can only think that he is referring to some material at Rainwarrior's talk page. I quote it here, with some highlighting in bold that I have just added:

Hi Rainwarrior. First of all, thanks: both for posting some useful advice at my page, and for looking after things conscientiously at the Sonata article. At the moment I prefer not to say anything on the Discussion page about recent edits. As things stand, I think the article has now been improved, and I am pleased to have had some part in that. I hope it will be clear, from the record that Wikipedia keeps of these things, that my edits are careful and well-intentioned, and that they usually work towards readability, accuracy, clearer style, correctness in grammar and punctuation, and general consistency in an article. If this is not the case, I am more than happy for my work to be undone! I do not currently engage in dialogue with Stirling Newberry, whose rudeness and intransigence were among my reasons for leaving Wikipedia for more than a year. I'm back now, and I very much enjoy collaborating with editors like you. – Noetica 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I now put this on record here, without also putting on record what I consider to be the personal attacks that Stirling Newberry has manifestly perpetrated. They can easily be found here and there, but it serves no purpose to draw particular attention to them. Let's all just get on with editing, I say. And especially, let's take care with our editing not to remove or revert improvements in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and style that we did not make the effort to produce. – Noetica 00:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonata problems--and interpersonal conflict

Hi Noetica,

Yes, indeed, it's been a while since we've properly caught up, and I greatly enjoyed our exchanges last year.

I have been noticing the troubles around the sonata article, and those related. There are, as I'm sure you know, two basic categories of trouble: content dispute, which should be solvable by discussion and participation of others, and the much thornier problem of interpersonal conflict.

Since I've communicated extensively both with you and with Stirling offline, I really can't get involved in this as an admin, i.e. I'm not going to be blocking anyone or protecting anything. I'm an involved party. (I'm not recalling even a single instance of blocking a true, non-vandal editor in my two and a half years here anyway, but that's beside the point.) Well--I'll just come out and say it--I think you and Stirling overreact to each other. You have very different editing styles, and you are both very sensitive to perceived slights.

Maybe this is obvious, but you and Stirling--as well as any other editors--need to start from what you have in common, that you want to improve the articles. Then perhaps list the places that need to be improved, and work on them, with an agreement to attempt to be as tactful as possible, especially in edit summaries and talk page comments. Collaboration with fundamentally different personalities isn't always easy or even possible, but agreeing on these starting points is essential. (And remember I'm writing this for anyone else reading, not just you.) I can provide comment on specific issues as needed, but since I know both of you I have to admit this strains my diplomatic ability to the limit. Good luck and happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[Posted at Antandrus's talk page:]

Thanks for your prompt reply to this at my talk page, Antandrus. Yes, Stirling and I do overreact to each other. For that reason I do not get into direct discussion with him: from my point of view, we are so different that it would be futile to attempt to engage him in dispassionate dialogue aimed at improving articles. I used to try; it didn't work. As I say, I can only claim this as my point of view! My style is to be meticulous in editing, and to declare my hand in edit summaries, where discussion on talk pages fails. If that can't work to make certain articles better, I'll probably stay away from those articles. (We must make what we can of the possible, as an ancient friend of ours reminds us!) Thanks, once more. We'll see what others have to say, and do. – Noetica 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again ... yes, I'm just starting to look at the History of sonata form. I hadn't been following that one. I'm trying to work out something to say on the talk page without being school-marmy, and I'm having a lot of trouble; we're all adults, and I'm not exactly in the position of a moral authority to tell others how to behave. Once editors start addressing each other on the talk page in a negative way, it is very difficult, but not impossible, to get the editing process back on the rails again. I think the best way is just to ignore--as best as possible--personal comments (God knows it's hard!) and to stick to the article issues. "In" the eras or "through" the eras? -- etc. Please continue editing: your meticulous style is exactly what we need to polish our articles to a true encyclopedic standard. Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC problem

The aggressive nominator of Unfinished work is rebutting my highly critical review of her bid to have this fatuous article promoted to FA status. At the moment, she seems to think that herassertion that the unfinished movement in JS Bach's The Art of Fugue has been completed using a mathematical paradigm is quite OK to leave as a bald statement in the article.

I wonder whether you might chime in.

Tony 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is being misrepresented as a "mathematical reconstruction". I've amended it and left a discussion on the talk page. - Rainwarrior 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Holding flower.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holding flower.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics/wip

Currently, there can be only one <references/> node per page. This is causing problems. If there are multiple versions of a section on a page, then the citations are co-mingled.

The design of this project is not conducive to the wiki way of development, which is based on trust. As a result, page development is slowed to a percentage of its potential.

I do not read the physics page, for as you may have guessed, it is pedestrian to me. Thus I was surprised to see it rated A. But based on the design of this project, the substitute /wip page can replace it only sometime in a distant future, if we stay the course.

I have attempted to make the wip page contribution fun or surprising, but it is difficult to contribute when we are not allowed to help each other out, per the ground rules. That cuts the pleasure of contributing to a fraction of what I am used to.

I have pushed my intro into a hide/show box. Might it be possible for us all to collaborate in the wiki way, somehow. As you might have guessed, I am really trying to get to the content stage; being stuck in the definition phase feels very constraining to me. Alternatively, I can just wait for several months while the project grinds to the next phase. There are certainly enough things to do in the meantime. --Ancheta Wis 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I urge caution in granting too much credit to Schrödinger's role in the discovery of the structure of DNA (the wikipedia article is good, you can see the history there, pretty much). Paul Forman's entry on Schrödinger, Oxford Companion to History of Science ISBN 0-19-511229-6 pp.733-4 pretty much deflates his contribution. Max Born threw out his letters when he moved to Germany, although Born praised the book What is Life?.--Ancheta Wis 12:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be perfectly obvious to the other editors that I could write up the biophysics of a tree in the system of the world pop-up. But I forbear, as it seems ungentlemanly and would simply bludgeon the matter and energy definition. (Which would have been perfectly true before 1905, and especially not true after WWII, when nuclear physics was in vogue) However, my points about the philosophy of the great physicists being a part of their research, are pertinent. The exact correspondence of 'nature' meaning 'characterization' in both Greek and English I only mentioned in passing. But to call physics 'the science of characterization' might work. (Characterization is the first step of the scientific method) --Ancheta Wis 13:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is the double editor?

I didn't spot that. Dbuckner 10:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But I thought double names was sockpuppetry or whatever. Isn't that public domain, and also, isn't that frowned upon? Dbuckner 10:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

--- OK, I read the Valery page and, first, I see that you have presented the case very clearly and concisely, and my first instinct is always to seek that, rather than credentials. You write beautifully, and I wish there were more like you on the Philosophy page.

On credentials, well, I tried a bit at Citizendium and it was awful. So I'm tempted to agree with you. The problem is that there is little reward for being a good Wiki citizen. There are at least two people on that page who are practically insance. Or at least, obsessive. You talk with them carefully, gently point out logical flaws in their argument, try to persuade them that they need to use sources carefully (i.e. so that whatever they quote supports whatever they are saying). Generally be a good citizen. Then of course they spew out the usual capitalized stuff, generally don't follow the thread, shift their position completely, and so on. So, little reward for being a good citizen. And one wants a life. So one leaves. Victory for the cranks, who are far more obsessive. And then of course, because the one things cranks really hate is other cranks, a massive edit war. Dbuckner 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Beautiful writing

There is also the issue of sheer mediocrity seeking to assert its rule. It does not always come unequipped, or single-voiced, when it discovers novel tools of subterfuge. May I bring to you both to the attention of that great depiction of an adversary in Amadeus? Are you reminded of that all-consuming envie of our Wolfgang, and the concluding senario at Mozart's death?

Greatings, all Rationalist(s)? Ludvikus 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Antonio Salieri --Ludvikus 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Don't worry. I'm not asking you to do, or say, anything. You've already made a great contribution with the observation(s) that you've posted. And having an observer who's willing to stick around is an additional contribution.

Why don't you just think of us as earthlings, with you as goddess Athena on Mt. Olympus capriciously willing to interject on the side of one of her heros? I prefer the role of Odyseus to that of Hercules. So that would make you more my goddess than his. I am presuming, by your name, that your gender is tender. But if it's not, that's OK too. As it's said on Seinfeld, "... not that there's anything wrong with that."

Regards, --Ludvikus 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On your Babes in Philosophy

Good job of fighting for your babies in philosophy - I saw your restoration.

I just moved your up (not down) were it belongs, stylistically.

I have some suggestions. If you look at Merriam-Wesbster's dictionary you will find that the 2 compunds are called combining forms. I recommend that you improve your babies by using this term. But the ball is in your park - I will not do it.

Best regards, --Ludvikus 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On prcatice

I agree with you. But it's temporary. But it's not silly. It comes from Marxism: Theory vs. Practice. I'm for the neat version. But if Db be is stubborn, I'll put it in too. Why not? --Ludvikus 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current disruption on Philosophy Talk

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note & I perfectly understand your position. The reason I have been so persistent is in order to take a stand on this issue (i.e. the issue of whether 'anyone can write an encyclopedia'. The individual concerned (L) I have no strong feelings about (except that he is a good example of a congenitally incompetent editor, and therefore a good case to take a stand on). I have been fighting this war quietly (sometimes noisily) for years here, and this seemed like a good time. I suspect it will end in me getting banned, but I don't really mind. Someone has to say that there is a fundamental problem with the way things are, here in the WPhood. Sorry, end of sermon. Best wishes. I hope you understand why I'm doing this. Dbuckner 10:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Horror?

Have I missed something? I skimmed through the discusion at physics/wip when you originally mentioned it ages ago. I didn't see anything that was so horrifying on the face of it. On the other hand, these things don't always appear at face value to an outsider. Dbuckner 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But did you look through the archives? They're a bit hard to find in the usual way, since the page is structured irregularly, and has several odd offshoots not documented below (and scarcely anywhere else). The five main locations are as follows:

Talk:Physics/wip

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive1

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive2

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition

Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition2

Talk:Physics/wip/leadvote

No, it wasn't as rancorous as Talk:Philosophy has got, but it was maddening in a more genteel way; and therefore in a sense more excruciating. Most of the discussion, at all of the locations, concerned either the content and wording of the lead, or the correct procedure for negotiating about the lead.

I left there some time ago. But recently I went back and suggested that, if they wanted a moderator (and they really do need one!), a philosopher would be their only hope. Preferably someone competent in philosophy of science. Just one newcomer did so much as respond to this thought. The process grinds glacially on, like the Chancery proceedings in Bleak House. In sum, it's just one of those areas, like Philosophy, in which nothing stable can be achieved in Wikipedia. Lord have mercy on us all! –Noetica 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd rather help Sisyphus over there...

Hello! Well, we've (and by "we", I mean Ancheta and myself since nobody else said a thing) decided to cut the bureaucracy at the Physics/wip page and allow free edits the article directly to any section wished. This should hopefully speed things up. The definition is near agreement (I hope!), and I don't hate it (I wouldn't go so far as to say it's great). Now, because things have opened up a bit, I've come to ask you for a favour: would you still be willing to write a "foundations" section that you suggested at the start of all of this? It's just that it was a really good idea and I'd love to see it included. I know that you left the project for a number of reasons, but hopefully those have now been addressed or disappeared: there is less (id est, none bar normal wikipedia rules) constraint on how the article is improved, and a certain unhelpful editor seems to have disappeared also. At least, I hope you will cast an occasional glance at the project to convince yourself that manners have improved. Regards, Krea 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I didn't expect you to come "running back". Your demeanour, as it appears to me, is that of one who stands by their principles, lest they be moved to act by a show of kindness. And it is the latter that was, unfortunately, not offered to you. You stuck a personal nerve when you said that you received only one reply. I apologize: your assistance was not asked for and yet you offered it anyway, and that deserved, at the least, recognition. I partly contacted you now to make amends for that: I felt bad for not saying anything at the time.

I agree that there are great philosophical considerations at the foundations of this subject, and that many editors do not have the competence to at least recognize its importance. I embarrassingly place myself amongst those who formally know little, but have thought "much" about such philosophical implications (although I hope to remedy this fault in my spare time soon). I will be busy, for the next few months in fact, and will be making little contribution to the project myself; so, please do not feel any duty in recognition of my plea to act in whatever way you choose any time soon (I expect to be able to devote myself to the project more during the summer period).

It is, as I recognize myself, too much to ask you for you to devote your precious time into creating something that would not be rightfully acknowledged. But, I hope that you would cast a critical eye over anything that gets added, and, at least, pass the odd concern over to me so that I might argue against anything dubious myself. Perseverance and an accommodating attitude are meaningless without a sharp intellect, and nothing compared to gentility. You appear to be a one of a rare breed to possess all of these, and it is I who must commend you. Krea 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Actually, the conspiring of circumstances are likely to force me to follow the same stratagem! Later... Krea 02:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BITE?

Hello. I agreed with your reversion, but thought the edit summary was totally uncalled for. Looking at your edit history, it also seemed out of character: is everything OK? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diminished seventh

Yes, I'm aware that my recent changes to diminished seventh didn't address your (well-founded) concerns, but they were changes which needed making nonetheless. I, too, learned harmony from Walter Piston's book, which consistently describes diminished seventh chords as "incomplete minor ninths" with missing roots, and we can't pretend that isn't an influential book. However, I know that most other theory books don't treat it that way. I'll continue to chip away at diminished seventh when I get time. What to do about Interval I have no idea. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard the term "diatonic" used in reference to intervals; I don't see why it belongs there at all. Everything you say about "diatonic" in your message to me is good, but it still seems to be about scales. If a chord or interval can be derived from a scale, we should say that, and forget about trying to label them diatonic or chromatic. It's as silly as trying to classify all intervals as "consonant" or "dissonant". —Wahoofive (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciations of foreign names

Hello, Noetica! I have a question. Why is 'w' in the name "Ludwig" also pronounced v in English? I thought only German does this way?! I am not a native English speaker, so I am curious. --- Sautiller 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some other articles on Wikipedia for foreign musicians such as Mozart, J. S. Bach, and Debussy, etc. Other editors only left the pronunciations of the original languages (as Amadeus in German and Debussy in French). How would you consider by adding English pronunciations to those, or removing the English one in Beethoven? --- Sautiller 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, where are you?

I'm in Taipei City, Taiwan. --- Sautiller 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They say it is not surprising that China still claims you for its own, since Taiwan is the most beautiful "Province" of all.

It's quite embarrassing situation as the history mentioned in Taiwan R.O.C.. It's of "face" issue to the polities of both sides (Mainland China and Taiwan). By the way, I've been to China for 4 times in the last three years. My company located some sites in China.

The pronunciations of "day" and "die" sound alike in Australian English?! --- Sautiller 11:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving "diatonic" discussion

Re:

I will just note in passing that the discussion doesn't fit naturally at any existing article,

Agreed. I am even sympathetic to your idea about Diatonic and chromatic. But Diatonic scale seems much closer than Interval, which shouldn't have any references to "diatonic" at all, and everyone (except Feetonthedesk) agrees with that. Furthermore, other editors with an interest in the discussion are more likely to find it there. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have greatly expanded Diatonic and chromatic and included a place for various quotations from reference works, which for the moment I have lifted directly from the various talk pages. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full stop

I'm glad that situation was resolved amicably, and I agree with your current change, which admirably characterises both current majority practice and the references offered.

Now, I need to set to the diatonic and chromatic article, and insist that it covers the meantone temperament as well... ;- / Richard1968 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Yeah, back in cyberspace for a while. I'll have a look at that article you mentioned soon, with some trepidation! Tony 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One concern is how the article relates to the articel named "Diatonic scale". Tony 11:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit comment on the color talk page...

made me laugh out loud... :-D That's one of the best comments I've seen Edhubbard 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both the one on the main page about ("Undo persistent childish change of "color" to "colour" by some anonymous editor who'd be well advised to spend time more wisely") and the one on the talk page("Thanks to the last editor for removing the barbarous "thusly", which is never seen in polite society..."). I try to provide some explanation, but you've inspired me to do better :-) Edhubbard 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid tones in Music Theory article

I posted a request on the avoid tones article discussion asking where the term comes from. I'm with you in not being familiar with the term and seeking to remove the link, but want to give the creator of the article a little while to add substantial references. --Myke Cuthbert 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D&C

The revolutionary quote belongs to someone else; I was merely supplementing the new page with two cited definitions. As I can't clearly define the delineation myself, the debate should ravage on between more experienced music theorists like yourself. I would be trampled!

Also, I think you may want to solicit the help of Asmeurer, DavidRF, and JackofOz. They are experienced musicians who help me with music topics often. ALTON .ıl 03:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A break from the preparation

Hello again, Noetica. Thanks the note you left on my user talk page, and your interest in the upcoming performance. I won't bore you by naming every piece on the program, but it includes a fair share of my own works (quartal jazz, neo-blue and atonal); the Beethoven Op. 78 Piano Sonata, apparently his own favourite of the 32; and a generous portion of Chopin and Liszt. I am not just trying to appease the audience with Chopin and Liszt...I think very highly of these composers. Liszt is so often dismissed by some serious musicians (understandably...he can be vain and superficial), but he can also be extremely innovative! (See my remarks on Liszt's use of the diminished scales at Octatonic Scale.) Still, I just can't resist using the Second Hungarian Rhapsody as a finale...audiences still love it, and I find it the most purely "fun" piece I have ever encountered!

Anyway, my hands need a break from the piano right now! I won't have the time yet to become involved in an article, and time-consuming research; but here are a few thoughts I wanted to pass on, which could possibly be of value in your own work on scales, intervals, tunings, etc.

First, in working on the Intervals article, it was agreed amongst editors that the major and perfect intervals could be defined in terms of the relation of the Lower Tonic to other members of the major scale. (However, the minor intervals cannot be defined by the natural minor scale, obviously, since tonic-to-supertonic forms a major second.) I proposed the concept that minor (and perfect) intervals could be defined in terms of the relation of the Upper Tonic to other members of the major scale. (If this concept seems at all uncomfortable, instead of thinking downward from the Upper Tonic, try thinking upward from any any member of the major scale to the Upper Tonic.) When I first presented this concept, it was dismissed as "awkward, contrived, and impractical". However, we Wikipedians are finally coming to realize that, despite our preconceptions, UPWARD and DOWNWARD are equal, both in theory and composition.

I can't think of an easier way to help music students understand minor intervals, except through the Locrian mode. From "lower tonic" upward, it defines the minor intervals, the perfect fourth, and the diminished fifth. From the "upper tonic" downward, the Locrian mode defines the major intervals, the augmented fourth, and the perfect fifth. In other words, the Locrian mode can be used to define all diatonic intervals. (Depending on your interpretation of the term, "diatonic intervals".)

I hope this message isn't becoming too lengthy. However, I thought you might find an experiment I conducted about 2 years ago, of interest. I tuned one piano in my studio to a "just" C major triad, and the other piano to equal temperament. I asked one half of my students to express their preference. The choice was unanimous...equal temperament was preferred. To be certain that individual instruments, with their unique tonal properties, didn't influence this "mini-survey", the following week I reversed the tuning of the two pianos, and asked the remaining half of my students the same question. Again, E.T. won, unanimously. Generally, the Just Tuning was heard as "dull and lifeless", while the E.T. was heard as "vibrant and alive". Is it just a matter of conditioning? (If so, would we not still recognize and appreciate, and even prefer the "natural" sound of a Just major triad?) It is worth noting that piano tuners in England (which didn't officially recognize E.T. until about 1851) commented on how much more vibrant and resonant a piano sounds when tuned to equal temperament! (I am growing tired of hearing E.T. described as an "approximation" of true intervals; a compromise; a necessary evil!)

Perhaps our concept of musical tuning is erroneous. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that Harmonics 1 through 6 "closely resemble" the most appeasing musical ratios. I DO have an explanation...an account of equal temperament being as natural as but of greater complexity than tunings based on (and limited by) simple harmonic ratios. But we'll save that matter...first, because this is already a very lengthy message, and also because my hands now feel rested, and I am ready to resume work at the piano! Best, Prof.rick 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See my user page

Noetica, Thanks for your note. There is a reply on my user page. Prof.rick 16:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See my user page, again

I've had more thoughts on modes and diatonic intervals. Check my user page. Prof.rick 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crepuscle of the Grammarians

Nice sonnet, and vocabulary such as the Anglophone mouth has but rarely shaped! And Popian references, to boot! Wonderful, wonderful, and thank you. (I saw that you, too, had run afoul of the apostrophe warrior. What mighty contests rise from trivial Things. Geogre 13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic function???

PLEASE, DO NOT READ THIS LONG MESSAGE UNTIL YOU HAVE TIME TO GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT!!!

Hi Noetica, thanks for writing! The concert went well. The piano was a Yamaha concert grand...beautifully tuned, regulated, and voiced. But, of course, there were a few things I would do differently if I were doing it again. The Chopin Berceuse seemed to be the favourite of musicians in the audience, while the Liszt Rhapsody obviously appealed to the general public (I was not expecting to be accompanied by toe-tapping and humming during much of the Friska!) For encores, I like to do familiar favourites. First it was the "Minute" Waltz, then the Fantaisie-Impromptu. (NO MORE performances until May 27!)

The "Diatonic function" article is just WILD! (Thanks for the "entertainment", but I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole!)

I've been considering the value of the Lydian and Locrian modes in teaching intervals. Since the Lydian mode (from the "root note" upward) presents the major 2, 3, 6 and 7, as well as the augmented 4, and perfect 5, while the Locrian similarly presents the minor 2, 3, 6, and 7, as well as perfect 4 and diminished 5; together they present all the diatonic intervals (I am deliberately excluding the aug 2 of the harmonic minor scale). The two modes are "mirror images".

The real value in using these modes in teaching is the fact that, in all "flat" key signatures, the final flat IS the root-note of the Lydian mode, and in all "sharp" keys, the final sharp IS the root-note of the Locrian Mode. To see how this would simplify matters for students: suppose the lower note of an interval is D flat. The "flat" immediately tells the pupil, "think Lydian". Then he considers the "order of flats", as far as D flat (B,E,A,D), to determine the notes of D flat Lydian....e.g., suppose the given interval above D flat is a 6th. If it is B flat, it "belongs" to the Lydian mode, and is therefore a major sixth. (If it were a B natural, it would then be a semitone larger than "major", being an augmented sixth.)

As another example, suppose the lower note of the interval is an A sharp. The "sharp" immediately tells the pupil, "think Locrian". He considers the "order of sharps", as far as A sharp (F,C,G,D,A) to determine the notes of A sharp Locrian. Suppose the given note above A sharp is a 5th. If is is an E natural, the interval is a diminished 5th. (If it were an E sharp, it would be a semitone larger...a perfect 5th.)

What if the lower note is neither sharp nor flat?

1. Check to see if the upper note is sharp or flat! If it is either, simply invert the interval, name it, then invert it back (using the old rule, "Subtract from 9, reverse the sign").

2. If neither note is sharp or flat, both notes are transposed the same number of semitones, by changing their accidentals, but not their letter-names.

The realistic advantage of this system is that the pupil isn't required to associate the lower note of the interval with the key signature of a major key. (Yes, some pupils have difficulty doing so!)

Your article on Diatonic and chromatic is looking great! It is certainly nearing completion! I appreciate the fact that it not only presents the varied applications of the word "diatonic", but makes clear the lack of agreement amongst leading authorities on the subject. GREAT! Don't just give the reader simple answers...but activate their usually-inert brain cells! Leave them asking questions! Help them to realize that Music Theory is no clear-cut subject...there are always more questions than answers; more discrepancies than agreements.

On the Harmonic Minor Scale: Forgive me if I seem naive, but I always believed that in REAL MUSIC any number of scale-notes could be used in their "normal" ascending or descending succession, in any voice. Yet in the Common Practice Period, it is strictly forbidden that any voice should proceed by the aug2! (I don't even consider the harmonic minor to be a scale per se, but a "note set", necessitated by harmony.) I therefore tend to think in terms of just ONE minor scale (the Natural Minor), whose sixth and seventh members are very often "chromatically altered" (just as modes are often chromatically altered in jazz). How this would simplify matters...both the harmonic and melodic minor scales could be presented as "common alterations of the minor scale". We could then define "diatonic scales" as consisting purely of tones and semitones (possibly including the octatonic scales; and pentatonic scales which are, in a sense, septatonic scales, with two member-notes either omitted, or serving only a decorative function). However, Wikipedia's strict policy of "no original research or personal points of view" forbids the inclusion of such concepts, even those which might rectify the glaring errors of noted "published" musicologists of the past! (Wouldn't it be just "so cool" if we could re-write music theory!)

After reading the Talk page, I hesitate to contribute to the article...the personal tone of certain contributors (who usually fail to sign their messages) is obnoxious and derogatory. If any worthwhile concepts occur to me, I'll convey them through our Talk pages, as I have done above. I admire your patience, tenacity, and painstaking efforts, as clearly revealed in your dedication to this article. Best, Rick Prof.rick 09:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Noetica, and thanks for your message. I will try to keep this one short, and unburdened by excessive theoretical matters. First, thanks for your comments on the performance. I couldn't do it myself without spending as much time on "mental preparation" as on "musical preparation". (I use visualization techniques.)

I agree, some material from Diatonic function must be saved, and hopefully added to Diatonic and chromatic.

A brief note regarding the aug2! I was referring to traditional "rules" of harmony (still being taught)...but rules are meant to be broken! We find such rules most commonly observed in the Classical Period. I shouldn't have included the entire Common Practice Period. It is to our benefit that Beethoven had little regard for rules, and also wrote parallel 5ths. His late sonatas reveal a very unique approach to harmony. I tend to regard Beethoven as a composer of transition; his early-period works were quite classical in style (no doubt, emulating his teacher, Haydn, even though he was already breaking the rules), while his mid-period works are more characteristic of the Romantic Period. His late-period simply transcends categorization. Personally, I regard Beethoven as the first true romantic, since his composition are both a conspicuous rebellion against classical order, and an argument for self-expression. Beethoven, like any "great" composer, lucidly confirms that Theory is derived from Music (i.e., compositions), not Music from Theory.

The concept I presented on the harmonic minor scale is not a rigid conviction, but simply one of many ways of perceiving the matter. I agree emphatically...all scales are abstractions. In fact, in my piano beginners' series, "You and Your Piano", I introduce scales with a rather simplistic--yet rather realistic--definition: "A scale is a set of the most important notes of a composition, arranged in ascending and/or descending order." ("Tonic" is later defined as the "centre of gravity" of the composition, and is usually the final bass note.)

I am still lost in the "dia" dilemma!! I appreciate both interpretations. The harmonic minor scale cannot be played using only the white keys of a piano; it contains 3 semitones, not 2, as well as the aug2. About the ONLY argument remaining to classify it as "diatonic" is that each letter-name is used once. (It would appear that the nays have it!)

Likewise, I acknowledge the validity of both arguments regarding the octatonic scales. (They ARE constructed only of tones and semitones; but they ARE NOT heptatonic; neither can they be played on just the white keys of a piano. At least one letter-name must be used more than once.) And what of the Gypsy scales? (The Spanish gypsy scale is Mode V of the harmonic minor, containing an aug2 and 3 ST.) [Argument: If all modes of the major scale are considered diatonic, and if the harmonic and melodic minor scales are considered diatonic, then ALL MODES of the harmonic and melodic minor scales must also be considered diatonic.] And what of the Hungarian gypsy scale, which is Mode IV of the Byzantine scale. (If the Byzantine scale is considered diatonic, then so must it's modes.)

I don't really like the definition of a diatonic scale as "one which can be played on only the white keys of a piano". The piano keyboard is a relatively recent development, with alternative key arrangements beings proposed and realized along the way; we may be better to consider heptatonic scales as consisting of two tetrachords (using only tones and semitones, but permitting the use of black keys on the conventional piano keyboard). We eliminated references to the piano keyboard, after some debate, in the semitone article, on the grounds that they can potentially lead to a bias towards the white keys as being more important. (In equal temperament, aren't all notes equal? Personally, I would like the black keys of a piano to have their own letter-names and staff-positions, to express their equality with the white keys.) A guitar, with it's frets, seems to be a better instrumental reference, since one fret is equal to any other. (The "piano keyboard" definition of "diatonic scale" I would like to see removed from the article.)

Again, I have been excessively verbose. Please excuse me! Best, Rick Prof.rick 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems the source of confusion stems from the statement that "all scales are either diatonic or chromatic". We NEED a third category, and a very broad one. (But how can we propose such a category in Wikipedia? One way would be to call the new category "Other". Result: 1. Chromatic Scale (consisting only of semitones) 2. Diatonic Scale (consisting of tones and semitones) 3. Others: harmonic minor, pentatonic (including blues) hexatonic (including whole-tone), and octatonic, chromatically altered scales and modes, etc., etc.

Perhaps a lead such as this could be used: "In addition to chromatic and diatonic scales..". This could lead to an article of its own! Prof.rick 07:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernado Giacomini

A tag has been placed on Bernado Giacomini, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Russ (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AD/CE, MoS, and POV

Hello.
First off, Wikipedia policy is settled on this issue, in that there is currently a policy for conduct. You keep breaking it.
Will it change in the future? Perhaps, but, for now, the policy is to not push for one stylistic preference over another, simply because that's what you prefer.
I have no problem with humouring your absurd arguments, like your need to push for a naming convention that says "Common Era", where the "common" part is specifically defined by the birth of Jesus. Please, enlighten me as to how a naming convention that specifically ties to the birth of Jesus is any better than AD. No?
No matter how you change the name, it still explicitly refers to the same event.
If a different event had been chosen, that might be different. (for example, if you wanted to switch to another calendar altogether, which would actually change which year it is, then that'd be far more valid than CE.)
Then again, I could point out your repeated POV-pushing.
"Christian-consensus outlook that is counterproductive in an international and multicultural encyclopedia of this sort" is hardly neutral at all.
The fact that a naming convention has christian roots is immaterial. Fact is, by an insanely huge margin, AD is the de facto standard naming convention. Using AD isn't at all religious; it's simply avoiding the pitfall of being prescriptive (another concept you might want to look into).
Of course, on the other hand, I could address your failure to assume good faith, your personal attacks, and your further agenda-pushing with, "this will be my last reversion of your POV editing returning us to the Dark Ages, Anonymous; don't accuse ME of pushing any POV; that is an absurdity".
My editing isn't POV. It's wikipedia policy. Don't like it? Have the policy changed.
"Dark Ages" is a gross exaggeration. A refusal to indulge revisionist history or political correctness is more accurate.
Calling an adherence to wikipedia policy "an absurdity" is rather uncivil, don't you think?
In fact, I could probably spend the rest of the day nitpicking, and pointing out all the policies, guidelines, and principles you keep breaking, but, instead, I'll simply refer you back, once again, to the Manual of Style.
"When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."
That is the current phrasing of the Manual of Style.
Fact is, I'd like to only see 'colour', never 'color'. I'd like to see "cheque", not "check" (I mean, come on, one's ambiguous; one isn't!) I'd like to see "litre" instead of "liter". (The americans don't even officially use the metric system; why should they get to rename the units?)
But, here's the problem: Manual of Style says I can't do that. I might believe that one style choice is better than the other. I might even be able to argue pretty conclusively that I'm right. However, fact is, it's a choice of style. I find "liter" offensive, but it's still considered a stylistic choice. And that means I don't get to change it unless the article itself demands the change for some very specific reason.
You haven't tried to argue that "heuristics" demand CE over AD.
You haven't even tried to argue that wikipedia policy supports your position.
It's cut and dry. You can't make the change unless you present a reason better than preferring CE over AD.
Oh, and before you make any more accusations against me, in spite of preferring the correct spellings of words like "colour" and "litre", I still revert changes that favour those superior spellings if the edits are against MoS. I don't get to pick and choose when the rules apply. Neither do you. 209.90.134.203 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My dear anonymous interlocutor, let me assure you first of all that I understand and sympathise with a great deal of what you say. If life were long enough, we could have a wonderful discussion of the many issues you raise here. But life is not long enough. I'll just make a few points briefly, without wanting it to seem if I could not counter much else that you say, as well:

• I am not replying at your talk page because you have not identified yourself as any sort of a continuing entity at Wikipedia, so I address you as a mere transient appearing at my talk page. Please don't take that personally!
• More than once you make remarks of this sort: "...there is currently a policy for conduct. You keep breaking it." Are you referring to my changes only at Heuristic, or to something wider? If the first, I have already said to you in an edit summary that I'll do no more. If the second, please tell me where else you see a problem.
• If you look at the history of Color, and the history of discussion there, you will see that I agree with you. I favour (not "favor") the spelling "colour", as you do. But I tirelessly revert political attempts to impose the spelling that I myself prefer.
• You seem certain that I have no particular argument in favour of a change from AD to CE at Heuristic. Well, I say this: there is only one place at which the matter comes up in the article, and it is in giving the century in which a certain Greek writer flourished. He was not a Christian, and the article has nothing to do with Christianity, but is rather a piece of "scholarly" writing in a secular encyclopedia. In such cases and in such writing it is overwhelmingly the practice to use CE as opposed to AD. (Check the relevant literatures, if you doubt this.) In an article about church politics, or heresies, or such, we might judge differently.
• There is still a good deal of discussion about the appropriate policy for CE versus AD. Yes, of course there is a guideline that you have pointed out. But these guidelines, in the very nature of guidelines, are not binding. See this, among the introductory remarks at Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "These are not rigid laws: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which should be applied with flexibility."
• I don't want to attack you personally or any other way. I have no idea who you are even, or what your other efforts have been at Wikipedia (since you have chosen to post anonymously on this issue). Please don't continue to attack, in turn, me. And please think again: the use of an abbreviation that means "year of the Lord" for the dates that we all use might be offensive to those who do not accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Lord. It is one thing to accept an important reference point in history because it is commonly accepted (CE, "common era"), and another to accept that point with a political and partisan loading that can only be interpreted as Christian. From such glib impositions are resistances such as militant Islamism born.

Since life is so short, and I have ceded ground and unilaterally withdrawn from any incipient edit war with you, let's leave the matter now and move on.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a butthole sometimes, ain't it? :)

Looking back, I was waaay too harsh with you.

I know you're fine with letting it drop, but just in case you wanted me to reply to a couple things: No, I didn't mean you made any mistakes anywhere outside heuristics, just that you weren't super-cheery-friendly to someone else who put in AD as well.

I actually find it kinda funny to see you making some of the same types of arguments I've made in the past, nearly word for word. (eg. guidelines are just suggestions for good practice, that shouldn't be blindly followed) To be honest, the only reason I responded so harshly was because I didn't like the suggestion that wanting to use AD was at all religious or POV in nature. Of course he wasn't a christian. (For that matter, anyone who lived far into the BC couldn't have been christians either) It's merely a nomenclature issue. Just like a manhole is a manhole, even when a woman uses it.

To be fair, I shouldn't have directly reverted back to the old phrasing. Linking to 'anno domini' was unnecessary. And I suppose that might've given you good reason to think I was trying to push a POV. Anyways, long story short, sorry for being a bully. I still think it's appropriate to use AD, but I sooooo could've handled that better. Bladestorm 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] em dashes

Oh, thanks, that's SOOOO much better in the MOS. Why don't you like them? I think they're kewl. And they have a very different function from en dashes. Tony 10:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford commas

It's just that there are so many commas in technical writing already, and the Oxfords seem to unnecessarily disjoint when not necessary for disambiguation. The hedgehog list at the start of the Australia article is an ideal example. Don't you think it's easier to read without the Oxfords? Tony 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On en dashes with spaces—well, you present a good case, and while I still prefer unspaced em dashes (the unspaced are sharper visually, to my eye, which supports the function of the em dash), I'm having to change my view on spaced en dashes as a substitute. Hoary was at me on the same issue a while ago.

And will you kindly give your advice on my (too hasty) changes to the previous requirement that all equivalent names to the title subject at the start of an article also be in boldface? Sandy's not happy at the retro-alterations that will be made necessary, and thinks the combinations of boldface followed by italics and/or quotes to be just as messy. I'd prefer no highlighting after the initial bolding. Is a compromise possible, in which the formatting of the equivalent items is optional? See talk page of MoS? Tony 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

Hi Noetica, thanks for the message, sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. I have to say, I'm kind of loath to get involved with an article like that, for fear of crossing the dogmatists(!), but when I get a chance I'll have a go at contributing something. Without doubt it's already looking healthier than most of the other music theory articles on Wikipedia. Diatonic function is pretty much unreadable. It's depressing to think anyone uses Wikipedia for reference when you see things like that.

I also have favour to ask, if you have the time/interest. I've recently been working on the Toru Takemitsu page, and I don't know if contemporary music is your thing, but I'm pretty much the only serious editor on this page and I could do with some proof-reading and advice, if you could spare the time. Likewise, I've more or less given the theory part of the fugue page a complete overhaul. If you could have a read-through, make any corrections and say what you think I'd be more than grateful.

Cheers Matt.kaner 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] single-chord vs contextual, functional analysis

I'm sorry that it's descended into name-calling, and I'm at least partly to blame. I genuinely want to convince you that single-chord deconstructing is misleading and not useful, especially to music students. It took until my undergraduate days for me to realise, with a burst, the function of pre-V chords. Why did it take this long? Because AMEB/Associated Board harmony had obfuscated the real function of II, IV and VI by ascribing tonic harmony to the cadential 6/4. So II goes to I (II–I–V–I)? But that's fundamentally wrong. II doesn't go to I except in unusual circumstances (as a passing chord from I6, maybe, but here the sense of root in II is not strong).

I was Deputy Chair of the AMEB way back, so I know where those organisations are coming from. I'd like to have a constructive debate about this. Tony 04:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC) [Answered at User talk:Tony1– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)]

Thanks for your note. There may be arguments for the single-chord labelling of one six four at cadences, but I don't they're strong ones. I'd like to hear the arguments, which are notably absent from discussion.

Thus, I'm OK that the single-chord angle be mentioned—indeed, that's necessary because of the widespread misinformation that persists on this point—and whatever the reasons for it explained (as per NPOV guidelines); but I'll push for the contextual analysis to be given greater emphasis, even if this is not an explicit emphasis (e.g., that it be covered first rather than second).

I'm still keen to convince you and the others personally on this matter, and without a substantive technical debate, that's not going to happen. To me, it's not enough to sit on the fence (what a zealot I must sound like), because we owe it to music education not to pass on a viral meme such as this, which clouds musicians' view of harmony. As I said, the simplicity and logic of the tonic—predominant—dominant—tonic scheme was fuzzed up in my mind, much because of the AMEB's labelling of I 6/4.

There's a simple, clear example of the value of not always single-chording roman numerals, at the start of the Andante from Schubert's Piano Sonata in A, Op. 120. The movement is in D major; a harmonic rhythm of one chord per two bars is established the outset. The start is a crotchet chord of D–F#–B. In the second beat, the B releases to A (D–F#–A), a chord that is prolonged for the rest of the opening two bars. It would confuse a student to label the opening crotchet-chord as b minor first inversion, moving straight to D major root position (i.e., vi–I). In this type of tonality, vi to I is very weak (the reverse is the norm). And who would capsize the listener's perception of the key by starting with vi?

No, the veil is lifted when the opening D–F#–B to D–F#–A is considered as chord I with a 6–5 movement above that stationary bass. Thus, 6/3 here is not a first inversion, but after the fashion of a suspension: melodically rather than harmonically generated. The opening D in the bass, then, is the root, despite the momentary absence of a 5/3 structure above the bass. The opening passage, then, can be understood by the student as a simple I – V 6/5 – I.

This principal—that some chords arise from the momentary coincidence of the parts alone and not from root movement—means that it's often simplistic and misleading to deconstruct individual chords, to say: "Ah, there's the root, gotcha". Parts just ... wobble about. I grant you, it's often safe to use the deconstruct-the-individual-chord method, but a careful eye should be kept on this wobbling, to avoid ascribing needlessly complicated root movement that defies the tonal scheme.

Reduced to dial-up? That happened to me last week out of town. Tony 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll deal with all that when I can. I have all the Schubert sonatas at my other location. In fact, I recently searched through them for examples of melodic use of harmonic minor. Found stacks of those – but all descending, as it happened. Might have missed some.

Meanwhile, here's your homework:

1. Give me your preferred analysis of the seven chords in bars 5 to 8 in the second movement of Beethoven's Opus 110, with special attention to the voice leading in bars 7 and 8. Dead simple!
2. Give me the best analysis you can from the alternative point of view adopted by the "opposition".

Reduced to dial-up? For some of the time; and for the rest of time a somewhat reduced broadband. A lesser system overall, with a tendency to freeze. And work to do!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. You've happened on one of the unusual instances of a 6/4 chord that is harmonically rather than melodically generated. Here, the sense of root is already firmly established (as C) and prolonged through the two beats in which G is in the bass. This is analogous to the "waltz" and "march" 6/4, such as the oom-pah-pah of the left hand, where the fifth of a chord is often touched in the bass (typically after the root has been sounded in the bass); the only reason I can call it "the fifth" is that there is a sense of root. Thanks for drawing my attention to this instance, which will supplement my other standard example, from Beethoven's SQ Op. 18/2, opening of the second mvt. Beethoven, it seems, like to arpeggiate the bass in this way.

So I don't think the single-chord and functional analyses would differ here: I [nat]6/4 of key V [nat]

To my understanding, most 6/3 chords are harmonically generated (unlike the Schubert example above), but almost all 6/4 chords are melodically (or linearly) generated, and therefore without a sense of root. This is a subtlety that takes a bit of explaining and follow-up reinforcement to undergraduates and studio music teachers; for theory/musicianship candidates, it's best left until about Grade VI, where it's hard to postpone dealing with 6/4s any more. (I think 6/4s shouldn't be touched until then.)

Incidentally, once you add a (highly directional) 7th above a root, the root is well defined in all positions, so there's no problem with V 4/3. Tony 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hyphens and dashes in the MoS

I'd appreciate your feedback. Although an obsessive about unspaced em dashes, I've tried to bend towards spaced en dashes, partly on your advice. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens_and_dashes_in_the_MoS Tony 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have to change some of your edits: working men who are hard sounds like a sexual reference; re-sort is a verb, now resort is a noun (would like both to have the same function); I want to remove the Some authorities ... bit, because I HATE mid semester without the hyphen, and don't want to encourage it, because there are enough contestables already in the section (Nth American vs others, etc), and because the section was pretty large already. For that reason, I think there are too many examples now in the co-opt section. The other changes are good. Thanks. Tony 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I knew the bit about the hard men would be controversial; but we easily can (and should) find a better example than English-speaking doctors. I wanted the new meaning of resort because yours was awkwardly glossed, if you'll excuse my saying so. Again, it's trivially easy to find a better example than resort altogether. I too detest the free-floating mid. Drop it, by all means. As for the co-opt bit, you need several examples because the matter is more complex than you represented it as being. I agree we have to keep things simple; that will take a little time, but really not much effort. I'll look at your changes, and perhaps suggest more in return.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's better for your suggestions, although some I've not retained. I've retained most (?all) of your co-opt examples after all, and yes, resort was awkwardly glossed. I thought the doctor example came from Fowler, but I can't see it. Your erect men did come from him, but is now ... well ... tainted. I've taken one of his others. And reading that entry, I see more that might have to go in. Do you think there'll be comlaints that too much is here that should be in the Main article—the one that's so unsatisfactory?

See what you think now. Tony 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Your "so 20th century" was predicative anyway, which is covered in another point. Tony 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, NZ/ZA example is good, but I have a more apposite one to WP: full dates at the starts of articles. Tony 09:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does Sino–Soviet diplomacy have a hyphen rather than an en dash? Tony 09:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict with en dashes, but I think I've covered your issues in my edit. Tony 10:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to stop people spacing em dashes on WP. In that respect, I'm proposing a new policy. Tony 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NZ/ZA versus dates examples? Use both, I say.

20th century predicative anyway? Sure; but I thought I had a good reason for putting it where I did. Could be OK now. I'll think more about it.

Sino-Soviet diplomacy with hyphen? That's the style-guide consensus. I used to argue for en dash, but I yielded. In fact, this example is clearer than, say, Franco–Prussian War, for which you could argue that Prusso–French is a reversal that preserves meaning (fully) and form (sort of). How would you similarly reverse Sino–Soviet diplomacy? There's no prefix-like variant for Soviet: Soviet-Chinese. See? The reversal test is quite handy, I think. Intuitive and easy for beginners. But there are other ways to theorise about all of this, including talk of subordination and coordination. In Franco–Prussian War neither the French nor the Prussians (invariably hard men) are subordinate. (Or they could take it turns to be on top I suppose; but let's not go there.)

New policy, against spaced em dashes? Good luck! I might be persuaded to assist you in having it accepted. No strong feelings for me, because I can't stand them spaced or unspaced.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts coming up right now. Do what you have to do, and I'll come back later to consider things and perhaps make some further suggestions.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent changes you've made. It's going to be a fine work of art. Predicative hand-fed—I've weakened it to "may be", because I think some Nth Americans would argue against it. I think your inclusion of US–Canada border was to illustrate the point about reversibility, but I think it's too much to assume that readers will get it without an explicit statement to that effect. In any case, reversibility is not always correct (take the years, dates, page ranges and even sports scores, for example; and it's the Sydney–Hobart Yacht Race not the reverse. And reversibility is clouded by our being used to a particular order where there's no logical preference—sometimes it runs off the tongue better. On Soviet–Sino diplomacy (the way the Russians would put it), I'd hold out for an en dash, because it clearly qualifies for one. Otherwise, the border example doesn't qualify, yet it does. The alternative is to exclude the diplomacy example. (I was once upbraided for changing hyphens to en dashes in US–Mexico War, but maybe they were influenced by the title of that article.)

That brings me to a difficult issue: the unfortunate exclusion of en dashes from article titles, as per the main article. This is a sorry state of affairs, and if the only thing to be sacrificed is the ability of Windows IE 6.0 users to make direct files out of such articles, sorry, that's not good enough. Use a different browser, don't you think? It's a similar issue to Windows users without keypads—they need to work a little harder to key in dashes. Too bad. See discussion at MoS. Tony 00:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks (amp)—now I know. Tony 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Is it premature to establish an implementation date, like next Tuesday? It's not as if the draft hasn't been announced in the right places. Tony 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for Wednesday, high noon AEST. Give people a chance to have a say with the four questions you have posed. I'd like some more responses on deleting that wretched WP:MOSDASH, too – and merging to make Dash and hyphen. It's all locked together. [Do you mind if we continue our dialogue on various topics here? Neat to keep it all in one place.]

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is fine. It will be a major job to merge and recast the main article on dashes, and I'd imagined that would be left until after the MoS was got into proper shape. I'm quite willing to leave the use-in-titles bit in—if no one objects, so be it. Tony 08:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your latest edits: you've won me over on "diplomacy", I guess—the distinction between the application of hyphens and en dashes can be subtle. PS Keep all but the most important discourse here, to avoid cluttering the talk page? Tony 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite deep and subtle. We have to present what's most important, and not dilute that with too much complication. If we were writing a guide for professional editors it would be a different matter. Yes, keep most of our discussion on such topics here, so we can collaborate more effectively.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad we agree on this:

...but a hyphen instead in Mon-Khmer languages which lacks a relationship, Sino-Japanese trade, in which Sino- lacks independence, and Indo-European linguistics which lacks both relationship and lexical independence).

Two comments:

• My wording aimed to preserve uniform structure with which lacks, but I don't mind your change.
• Cases like Mon-Khmer languages are controversial, since some would say that the lexical and referential independence of Mon and Khmer trumps the fact that there is no relationship involved. But I think we have it most logically now.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't understand your new fourth point at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dashes)#Proposal_for_four_substantive_alterations. SMcCandlish is all mixed up on this, despite having made other, useful comments. Seems to misunderstand about spaced en dashes as quite standard sentence punctuation, and wrong about alleged misuse of parenthetical, etc. Your own fourth point is not well-formed. Note the exact wording of the article as it stands (with my underlining):

• Spaced en dashes – like this. (Note: an unspaced en dash is properly used to indicate a range of numbers; unspaced en dashes should not be used for the parenthetical or colon-type uses, as discussed above.)

But your point has this:

Removal of proscription on using spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes,...

My suggestion: revert your recent change that added the fourth point; re-read SMcCandlish carefully; think; re-edit as appropriate. (Sorry if that sounds patronising: in haste, to rectify things quickly.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But the page says: "(Note: an unspaced en dash is properly used to indicate a range of numbers; unspaced en dashes should not be used for the parenthetical or colon-type uses, as discussed above.)". It's clear enough, isn't it, that the fourth, added proposal concerns getting rid of this. Tony 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted it; thanks. Tony 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Look again. You've confused spaced and unspaced. There is no relevant proscription on using spaced en dashes on the page.

OK! Now, read SMcCandlish carefully. Seriously mixed up.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who, him or me? (Or the whole Dashes page?) Tony 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No no! I was referring only to SMcCandlish, echoing what I had said above: "SMcCandlish is all mixed up on this,...". You are just in a bit of a hurry right now. You and I, we are not mixed up! The whole Dashes page? Yes, it's a disaster area. Erase it from the face of Wikipedia.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your fixes. Should the MoS be silent on hyphenating numbers (e.g., twenty-three)? I see that the Hyphen article covers this. Tony 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think MoS should make a general link for these things, in this style: "For hyphenation of numbers and proportions (twenty-two, one and three-fifths) see Hyphen." In fact Hyphen does not cover these things well, and is in need of radical revision overall. Or, as you well know that I prefer, merging into a clean new Hyphen and dash. Theoretically there could a link with WP:MOSNUM instead; that's an important MoS page, but it too needs major work. The whole suite of MoS pages needs to be considered together. So do all of the punctuation and usage articles need to be re-worked in coordinated fashion. And then links between these two types of pages can be implemented far more usefully.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely; do you agree that this rationalisation should come after the MOS proper is overhauled? It will need all hands on deck to support a merger when it comes to the crunch. Tony 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Look Tony, I've had enough of all this for now. I'm wrestling with interminable nonsense at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic and associated pages, as well. Have a look! But be very wary – those matters are every bit as subtle and hotly disputed as six-four chords, or the use of hair spaces with slung non-breaking bloody curly brackets, or whatever. The prospect of getting any reasonable number of willing and skilled hands on deck at Wikipedia seems to me about as likely as a quick solution in Iraq. But yes, it would take all hands and a huge effort. More later!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can you scrutinise Jimp's recent feedback, my rejoinders, and my changes to the draft? Tony 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimp has made some useful points. I have done a little fixing, but I have to go now. I'll be back, and may do more. I'll also comment summarily at talk for WP:MOS. As for the names of birds, I find nothing in Oxford or Chicago in favour of capitals for common names used technically. That's not conclusive, of course. I'll see if I can track down more guidance, but that might take some time.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; much better. The examples here concern me:

• The hyphen is retained after certain prefixes such as “non-” and “sub-” to avoid bringing two consonants into contact, especially doubled ones (“non-negotiable” but “unnotched”; “sub-basement” but “subabdominal”).

"especially doubled ones" is followed by two double ens, one hyphenated and one not. The second pair are consistent with the preceding explanatory clause (double-b versus no doubled consonant). Confusing? Tony 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I entertained the same worry myself, but dismissed it. Contrasting “non-negotiable” and “unnotched” shows that only some prefixes are affected by this principle; contrasting “sub-basement” and “subabdominal” shows a more focused application of it. I did think, and now think more strongly, that a reversal in each pair might help: “unnotched” but “non-negotiable”; “subabdominal” but “sub-basement”. This way, in each pair the more general way with hyphenation is shown, and then an application of the specific principle. I'll make that reversal now.

There are so many more considerations we could mention! But we must limit it. Why then am I against having a specific guide for such things, like the still-dreadful WP:MOSDASH? Because it deals only with dashes, remember; if anything, you'd want one for hyphens and dashes considered jointly. And then, it really is unnecessary if we have Hyphen and dash. A substantive article can still be a "formal" adjunct to WP:MOS.

More later. Busy in the world for a while.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(No indent because of quotes:)

• The hyphen is always retained to avoid doubling “a” or “i”: “juxta-articular”, “semi-intensive”.
• The hyphen is retained after certain prefixes such as “non-” and “sub-” to avoid bringing two consonants into contact, especially doubled ones (“unnotched” but “non-negotiable”; “subabdominal” but “sub-basement”).

First point: I liked “semi-intensive”; any reason not to retain it? “Always”? You see “skiing” nowadays, but I guess these points are about prefixes.

Second point: Can we use "used" rather than "retained"? It's as though it was there before and we're keeping it. "Used" is used elsewhere.

Is it clearer with this parenthetical addition?

• A hyphen is used after certain prefixes, such as “non-” and “sub-” (but not “un-”), to avoid bringing two consonants into contact, especially doubled ones (“unnotched” but “non-negotiable”; “subabdominal” but “sub-basement”). Tony 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-intensive? Sure. I have added an example, not replaced any.

Skiing? That's right: it's not relevant. More could be said about prefixes ending in vowels, but it might be too much.

Used? Yes, that's better.

Your parenthetical addition? No, it gives the impression that cases like "un-" are exceptional. But they're not. I would instead prefer to give a further judiciously chosen example of the normal, modern, unhyphenated style for contrast, and to reword to play down the number of prefixes affected:

• With a few prefixes, notably “non-” and “sub-”, a hyphen is used to avoid bringing two consonants into contact, especially doubled ones (“indeterminate”, “unnotched”, but “non-negotiable”; “subabdominal” but “sub-basement”).

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard, this one. There are really two points being made: (1) only some prefixes are involved (not “indeterminate” or “unnotched”), and (2) they don't necessarily have a hyphen if they don't bring two consonants together (not “subabdominal”). I think the examples need to be specifically attached to those two points, or a lot of readers' minds will end in mish-mash. Mine did. Tony 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

See my latest editing. We are pressing up against the limit. Any more and we have too much detail; but illustrate by examples from which to extrapolate. Make Hyphen and dash, to refer to! No other solution seems at all workable.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PS On the main page talk, it looks as though there's not sufficient consensus to ban spaced ems outright, so I'm going to propose a compromise: “Em dashes are normally space on Wikipedia”, rather than “Em dashes are always spaced on Wikipedia”. Pure and simple, no further explanation. Reasonable? Tony 02:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Diplomatic, and therefore much more likely to get through. Then one day, when this moderate reproval is more the norm, it will seem reasonable to call for banning spaced ems altogether. Festina lente. Further into the future, the virtues of spaced en dashes will be obvious to all. In that bright and sweetly reasonable world will the lion lie down with the lamb, and the rain drench the willing earth only by night.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You must live in Sydney; I just got a soaked running from car to front door. Tony 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Not Sydney. Not that bad.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now it's pared down to just one example, and it's not billed as an example of other prefix-hyphens. I'm wondering whether it could start with an introductory sentence to the effect that prefixes are sometimes followed by hyphens to avoid ....; for example,

Sorry that this one point has caused so much labour; I guess it's worth getting right to flag that there's a whole class of hyphenage in it ...?

Are you feeling like taking the plunge soon and moving onto another part of the MOS (or resting from it!)? Tony 05:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just one example? What do you mean? I don't understand any of this, I'm afraid: Oh, now it's pared down to just one example, and it's not billed as an example of other prefix-hyphens. I'm wondering whether it could start with an introductory sentence to the effect that prefixes are sometimes followed by hyphens to avoid ....; for example,

Of course there are many ways of organising all this. I think what we have is nearly as right as we can get it, short of having vastly more or frugally less.

Plunging into another part of MOS? I have to stop myself. Too much else to do, in the world. But I reserve the right to make late submissions on anything, from the middle of next week onward.

What about my suggestion for a more radical overhaul? See the need? See how it's a solution to the hyphen-and-dash anguish? I am reluctant to do much more detailed work if we can't look at the bigger picture too. Such detailed work can easily be for nothing, without such broader planning.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

O, I see. You mean only "sub-" as only one, and "non-" as only one. I see. Well, that's what I mean about detail.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely about rationalising and recasting the ?four articles into one; let me know when you feel like doing this, and how (initially, by posting merge tags and announcing the proposal at each talk page, I guess; but good to have a rough game-plan as to the structure of the new beast). Sub and non are fine, although I've tweaked the wording. I'm keen that the new sections be "enacted" soon; 105 edits over eight days, and you and I risk becoming stale (by all means, refine further after implementation). I'm also keen not to let the proposal for three changes to policy hang around the so-called main article for two long; I think there's consensus to end the proscription on dashes in titles, and to remove the permission to use double hyphens, in conflict with the current and new MOS sections. Spaced ems as per above.

So I just needed to know that I'm not jumping the gun by implementing both. Tony 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for discussion in the Music MOS

I think the reason people haven't responded to your call for discussion regarding music theory issues is that the request was too vague.

Q2: What issues need attention?

Q3: What are the priorities among these issues?

This is too much of a real-world approach to this kind of discussion, as if you had everybody in a room with big tablets to write on. It's less conducive to a online discussion with ever-changing membership and intermittent contributions. No one's going to commit to a discussion without knowing the topics in advance. I've been following your comments and even I am not really sure exactly what it is you want to discuss. Rather than start by trying to develop an agenda, why don't you toss out what you think are the most pressing issues, either at MOS-music or WikiProject Music and we can get the ball rolling from there. It's easy to add topics later. Also, since I suspect few people have those pages on their watchlists, once we have a discussion started we can invite people in from other articles which are closely related to those specific topics. (I'll watchlist this talk page so you can respond here if you wish.) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wahoofive. Yes, I think you're right; and normally the very general motion I put should not be expected to work. But remember that we did start with a couple of very definite questions that were holding things up at Talk:Augmented sixth chord. I specifically proposed discussing exactly those, in a more appropriate forum. They were: 1) how to mark up chord indications (and according to what traditional music-theory protocols); 2) how to deal with the six-four chords. Surely neither of these can be settled with a wide enough consensus at a page devoted to 6⁺ chords! So I feel that I am justified in making that call, and I think it would have been appropriate for editors to respond to it. Never mind: they didn't, and Wikipedia's wonders and limitations are both once more in evidence, simultaneously.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] birds

Are you comfortable with this recent edit to the MoS?. To me, it raises problems. Tony 08:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This part, you mean?

Some WikiProjects have reached consensus on capitalization. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds capitalizes all bird species' common names, following the official lists of formal species names set by regional academic associations, and accepted by virtually all ornithologists, authors of field guides, and other professionals.

First, it's too wordy and doth protest too much. Second, it sounds correct that ornithologists and other "professionals" capitalise the common names in formal contexts. Compare the Sun in astronomer's usage (or when we speak of it as an astronomical entity) versus the sun when we speak of it rising and shining, for instance. Do you want me to research this in my reference works (including style guides), when I have time?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 08:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice. In the meantime, I'm going to revert that change and explain this situation. I think Fred needs to put a case and gain consensus. Thanks. Tony 08:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noetica and Tony's conversation (continued)

Tony, I've started a new section for our deliberations, since the last section was getting cumbersome. Good to see the new material in place at WP:MOS, on dashes and hyphens. Well done! See my recent change in order, which did not get transferred. I still recommend it, despite the indenting not being optimal. I don't think there's a way to mark it up to get the paragraph that I shifted lined up more to the left, without disrupting the numerical list. See also the change in a heading that I made at WP:MOS itself.

As for reforming things on a larger scale, I'm very pleased that you agree and that we can collaborate on that. We can push for such changes more effectively together, and we can join our skills very effectively to manage the swags of details involved. Timing: I have a serious deadline of Tuesday 19 June for something else. How about us discussing those changes here, on Wednesday? I can give it my attention then, but can't afford to be distracted before then. Good?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good, with the proviso that my workload at the moment is slightly unpredictable from half-week to half-week, but is not the frenzy that it is before grant-application deadlines. See here, too: good to spread the word and raise people's awareness of a much-neglected part of writing! Tony 11:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. There will be a lot to do, and as you point out we have to bring people into the process; so a brief pause fits in well right now. As for the flow of this work once we get started, it may be that you and I can "oversee" different divisions of these reforms – perhaps along the lines of HTML-Unicode-general-computer-oriented matters versus more traditional matters, or dashes as sentence punctuation versus hyphens (and occasional en dashes) as word punctuation. We could each contribute wherever we want to, but take on different primary roles, so that we can also operate to independent schedules, depending on your flow of worldwork, and mine.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Your relocation of the note about spacing was good; wasn't transferred? Tony

Fixed now.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, here we are on Monday morning. I've still got a tramload of work to do on other things, and have been trying to keep away from Wikipedia. Only partial success, I'm afraid. Note that a proposal concerning dashes has been put forward here. See my response. I thought I needed to nip it quickly, before things were diverted to what I see as a less trenchant and less useful move. Are we in agreement? Got your message. That's all fine! I do want to collaborate with you on these things. As for six-four, I am reluctant to weigh in at the present theatres of engagement. Take it to the main room (or what we should declare to be the main room, for such action) and I'll be in it. Meanwhile, I might email you about some of this, if that seems best.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Wednesday. And I'm still busy in the cosmos at large. Work, and then a funeral yesterday. A couple of things, which I hope we can keep separate:

• I can't free myself yet to discuss the details of our joint proposal on dashes and hyphens, but I'll get back to you in a couple of days, if that's all right with you. This will need close consideration.
• It's sad that a small edit war has erupted at Inversion (music). I suppose Talk:Inversion (music) is a better place for that action than Talk:Augmented sixth chord, anyway. But I will not join the discussion until it is at least advertised widely enough as dealing with an MoS-type matter, at other relevant locations. Meanwhile, if that war continues I may decide to join forces with the status quo, to retain the offending figure. I hope you wouldn't take that personally. It's just that I want discussion that will found a better precedent, and I'm not happy about changes backed only by a local dispute.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would mean the end of our collaboration on anything; it's going to be very unpleasant, I'm afraid, and there'll be no end to it until the fallacy is not privileged by an illustration, but is either side-by-side with the correct analysis or treated in the text alone. I'm trying to keep you out of what will go to mediation. Tony 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Augmented sixth

Thank you for removing the {{disputed}} tag. I was too afraid to do it myself. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on the Aug6 page, you and Tony and Wahoofive as well!! My applause to you all, no matter what your detractors may say. maestro 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought I was one of the detractors! Tony 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased: "...no matter what you may say about each other." Better? maestro 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Takemitsu

hey Noetica, I really appreciate you having a look at this page. Thanks for sorting out the American/British english thing in particular. Think American is a good idea, just because most of the quotations use it. It's nice to have someone else do something constructive for once! Matt.kaner 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey another thing Sea of Tonality is Takemitsu's term and I will get quotes etc for it later. Haven't had the chance yet. Good work tho cheers

Matt Matt.kaner 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep it's a term he used to describe his more tonal music when he got older! Matt.kaner 11:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on I 6-4

Hi Noetica, thought I should mention that a request for mediation on 6/4 notation has been established. You were not mentioned as an involved party (you seem far too good natured for anyone to ever have a gripe with you! :), so you needn't add yourself unless you want, but thought you might be interested in seeing how things proceed there. All the best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (clarify invite at 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Hyphens in MOS

You promised more feedback about the manual of style and hyphens, but it's been about 2 weeks and I am getting restless enough to gently remind you about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)